| Author
|
nord g2 demo vs micro modular
|
Auralviolence
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
58
Posted : Aug 31, 2007 16:36
|
|
The most popular method of making antialiased waveforms (saw & pulse waves are amenable to it) is to slightly "round" the oscillator peaks (saw) and fronts (pulse). But there other methods exist too, what are better... That's the possible reason why the NL2 oscs may seem more "hard". Also very good oscillators are in Reaktor 5 - oscillators on primary level are softer, but Multiosc which is made in Core sounds more hard, because it have another antialiasing method, and as the result more geometrically right waveform. Also there are some other oscilattors realization (core) in the rektor's userlibraries, which have slightly different waveforms and it spectres. |
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Aug 31, 2007 17:03
|
|
i m not sure cause i didn t a/b them but from what i remember the nord 2 is warmer and i m talking just about the oscillators too ,i was suprised about the sound of the g2 demo but not in a good way. |
|
|
|
Auralviolence
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
58
Posted : Aug 31, 2007 17:31
|
Is there a possibility to use LFO instead of oscillator in G2 Demo ?  In Reaktor it's possible... The sound should be much warmer, nearer to NL2 oscillattors with pure geometricaly right waveforms and full possible aliasing)) I'm seriously - try it, if it's possible there)) |
|
|
|
spinalpuppet
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
87
Posted : Aug 31, 2007 17:49
|
|
spinalpuppet
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
87
Posted : Aug 31, 2007 17:59
|
|
Auralviolence
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
58
Posted : Aug 31, 2007 18:14
|
spinalpuppet, I didn't tried how it sounds But I know that it's possible with reaktor's LFO (as with primary, as with core). Of course you can FM it too. The better way for FM is to use core LFO, because on primary LFO there is "F" (red color) input for frequency, and this is "event" input - and it is not very good for FM, because event inputs accept events on reaktor Control Rate, what you can set in reakotr's settings (400-3200 Hz). But in core modules you can change the type of input - set this to event (red color) or audio (black color). Audio input will accept audio events at audio sample rate - this is what you should do, if you use FM in your instruments. Because if you will modulate event input type with audio signal - it will be "digitized" on control rate value, what sure is very bad  Better use core Multiosc - Multiosc waveforms are very good. |
|
|
|
spinalpuppet
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
87
Posted : Aug 31, 2007 20:35
|
well i think i managed to kill the AA in the master osc in the core macro library
http://sidetrakkt.com/aliasedsaw.ens
someone had suggested that lfo trick to me on the forums before too when i asked for aliased oscilators but i never really got into it.
I'm not real impressed with how different the AA vs non AA sounds. If you ever get a chance to find reaktor 2.3 check out how incredibly brutal the sound is. There is some stuff that just sounded better in 2.3.
Even with that lfo oscilator in the g2 it doesnt sound like a nl2/nm1. I assume alot more than just the AA on the oscilators was redone. |
|
|
|
Auralviolence
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
58
Posted : Sep 1, 2007 01:53
|
spinalpuppet, I'm very sorry for my english, but I didn't understand anything from your post: I didn't understand what you think is better and what is not. Please write more understandabaly
From your example already known things are seen: non-antialiased oscillators sound awful, with very big amount of artifacts in high-mid and high freq ranges - that's known thing. The core versions sound much more better and clearer, as I said above.
Why did you meaned 2.3 version ? The antialiased oscillators are from the Reaktor 4 version - untill Reaktor 4 it was afwul. In Reaktor 5 NI gives the alternative methods of antialiased OSCs - Multiwave OSC sounds very nice, and I said above - there are some other core-made OSCs realizations available in user librararies. |
|
|
|
Auralviolence
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
58
Posted : Sep 1, 2007 02:27
|
|
And one more thing: set Reaktor's internal sample rate to 88,2 Khz or 96 Khz, and listen the results of your ENS again. That's the reason why all virtual analog hardware synths works on high sample rate like 96 Khz (88,2 Khz is enough too). |
|
|
|
spinalpuppet
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
87
Posted : Sep 1, 2007 02:46
|
hey sorry auralviolence, its cool to talk to someone into psy that really knows reaktor.
I went to my first psy party in 1999 then downloaded generator the next day and started learning.
as far as what is better or worse...There are alot of ens that sounded way better in reaktor 2.3 than they do in 3,4 or 5. If you ever used lazyfish heishere, while it still sounds cool it sounded inhuman in 2.3 That was because the entire signal path was mathematically pure. It was brutal and harsh, but someone that is such a synth master like lazyfish designed the algorithm with that in mind and that ens has got progressively more lame on each release. Same thing happend with sigmar kreie's masterpieces. 3 was less harsh than 2.3 but still not anti aliased. then 4 threw all the old ensembles out the window.
If you can get your hands on 2.3 or 3 try junatik or the sh-101 emulation and compare it to what it sounds like in 4 or 5. it sounds WAYYYY better in 2.3 or 3.
To me it just seems that companies have gone towards a softer sound since 2000. Its better in some areas of synthesis, in some areas though its not as good. I wish we had the option for both still.
do you post on the NI forums? I'm machinehermit there. |
|
|
|
Auralviolence
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
58
Posted : Sep 1, 2007 03:59
|
Quote:
|
There are alot of ens that sounded way better in reaktor 2.3 than they do in 3,4 or 5. If you ever used lazyfish heishere, while it still sounds cool it sounded inhuman in 2.3
|
|
At first, I didn't remember any Lazy Fish's instrumens, where he used standart oscillators for producing the sound - as I remember, he always used sample-oscillators, XY-audiotables or other specific methiod - but not standart oscillators, I don't remeber that So, how the oscillators since 4th version could affects the sound of his stuff ?
Quote:
| That was because the entire signal path was mathematically pure ...progressively more lame on each release. |
|
Did you talk about this strange theory on NI Forums (you're participate on NI Forums )? It's very interesting to read what guys like IXNT, Kid Sputnik, Sowari or Herw think about your theory
My opinion, that it's something like a fetish, if you like the hi/mid-freq artifacts of simple digital aliased oscillators... I can't understand this All the world wars against it, developing the algorithms for antialiasing oscillators... But you like it))
|
|
|
|
Auralviolence
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
58
Posted : Sep 1, 2007 04:01
|
Quote:
|
do you post on the NI forums? I'm machinehermit there.
|
|
No. I only read this forums sometimes. |
|
|
|
neuromantik
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
28
Posts :
593
Posted : Sep 1, 2007 23:22
|
Huh pardon my newbieness, but aural + spinal, you both seem to be really knowledgeable on reaktor and all, can you tell me if the nord modular g2 provides anything more than what reaktor 5 can offer?
Is it better sound quality? Wait I guess that depends on my sound card. Ok please tell me which modular synth you might choose among the 3:
- Creamware Pulsar2 + Reaktor 5
- Creamware Pulsar2 + Modular3 + Flexor
- Nord Modular G2
Sorry if I'm asking a lot, but I'm really curious about sound quality and capacity and I'm no sound engineer so I can't really pass judgement. Thanks  |
|
|
|
Auralviolence
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
58
Posted : Sep 2, 2007 00:23
|
That's very diffcult question. I can't say what is better exactly.
In nord G2 you can build your patches very fast, if you have basic knowledges of synths and basic audio physical processes. But reaktor needs very deep RTFM  . About sound quality: I can't say what is better - reaktor sounds comparably with nord g2 at 88,2/96 Khz internal sample rate (you understand, that it needs about 1,5-2x higher CPU resources), but of course, they have different sound characters because of different algoritms of their modules, but imho reaktor doesn't sound worser than G2 (as many people think, because of hardware vs software)! They sounds differently. Reaktor is more flexible, because it has many modules and possibilities that nord g2 doesn't have, but I said before, it needs deep RTFM for using these possibilities, and it needs much more time and experience for building.
So. If you don't like building the stcutrures - you need Nord Lead 3.
If you like to build the structures, and you're ready to assign some time for it building/rebuilding, etc. - nord g2 is for you.
So, try the both, and do your choice. On my opinion, it'll be better if you choose Nord G2. But try them all of course, if you have the possibility before buying something of it.
And, of course, using hardware synths, you save your computer's CPU resources very much. |
|
|
|
neuromantik
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
28
Posts :
593
Posted : Sep 2, 2007 13:56
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-09-02 00:23, Auralviolence wrote:
In nord G2 you can build your patches very fast, if you have basic knowledges of synths and basic audio physical processes. But reaktor needs very deep RTFM . About sound quality: I can't say what is better - reaktor sounds comparably with nord g2 at 88,2/96 Khz internal sample rate (you understand, that it needs about 1,5-2x higher CPU resources), but of course, they have different sound characters because of different algoritms of their modules, but imho reaktor doesn't sound worser than G2 (as many people think, because of hardware vs software)! They sounds differently. Reaktor is more flexible, because it has many modules and possibilities that nord g2 doesn't have, but I said before, it needs deep RTFM for using these possibilities, and it needs much more time and experience for building.
|
|
Ok fair enough, well I really do like the concept of modular synthesis so I'm sold on that rather than traditional "fixed" synthesis but what I was really curious about was the sound characters you mentioned and what do they entail exactly.
I was under the impression that the nord g2's "character" was relatively "dreamy" like the nord lead 3, compared of course to a virus' oscillators with their characteristic dark and bass heavy sound. Now if the g2 is designed in the same philosophy, I would stear clear away, since I'm not looking to create those types of sounds.
Now I wouldn't mind trying out the demo for myself, but then how do I know for sure that the sounds produced by the demos will be the same as from the hardware, since the DA converters are different and all.
But thanks I'm one step closer to making a decision |
|
|
|
